Nastiness Diagnosis. Anthropology. Religion. Gender. Justice. A Personal Notepad For the General Public.
「可敬的種族主義」“Un racisme «respectable»”. 原為加拿大籍學者使用，後來被一些法國學者使用來批評法國社會。
he context within which this episode took place is slightly more difficult to untangle. There is an easy tendency, sustained by the media, to accentuate the extreme social precariousness in the French suburbs, the failure of national integration, the continuing problem of the suburbs, regardless of the particular political persuasion of the government in charge. Every one of these colours the context. But there is a new element in play during these incidents in Trappes: Islamophobia.
It shows up in multiple forms: attacks on mosques, desecration of religious sites, the ban on the headscarf in public schools, making it impossible for certain veiled women to access public services, to accompany their children on school outings, the rampant insults, harassment, humiliation, physical and verbal aggression they are subject to, racial and ethnic profiling and discrimination, sometimes culminating in physical attacks, such as the recent one on a veiled woman in Argenteuil, who lost her baby as a result. But the principal characteristic of Islamophobia is that it remains, at least in France, very rarely denounced. It is consistently perceived as an exaggeration, the result of victimised posturing invented by troublemaking Muslims, who are incapable of integrating and bending to the requirements of French citizenship.
近 來年著名的「郊區」暴動事件與國內面臨「整合」的挑戰。郊區暴動通常都是跟警察暴力與少數族裔被欺壓等ethnic profiling相關，近年來的伊斯蘭符號問題只是最後一根稻草。（然而，右派政客近二十幾年來將「歐洲」與「伊斯蘭」雙雙本質化，也逐漸將該種論述 「正常化」，甚至滲入某些沒落的左翼群體中。）
SLAM IN FRANCE : THE SHAPING OF A RELIGIOUS MINORITY, By Jocelyne Cesari, CNRS-France and Harvard University
Islam is now commonly considered to be the second largest religion in France behind Christianity. Acceptingthis demographic reality has never been easy for many French citizens. Too often discussions about Islam inFrance begin and end with a treatment of Muslims as a social problem. Too often the question is asked: CanMuslims fit into French society?. That question presupposes that Islamic values are inherently incompatiblewith western ones and that Muslims constitute a “dangerous class”.
Their difficulties with their countrymen derive from troubled French memories ofcolonialism in North Africa, during which period Muslims were not deemed citizens without first renouncingIslamic Law, even though they had already been granted French nationality (Algeria was a French department.)As a result, many French people, struggling with contradictory feelings of superiority and humiliation, anguishover the settlement of Muslims in France since the Algerian War of Independence.
Through the decades, majorreligious groups – Christian and Jewish — have made uneasy peace with laicite by relegating religiousexpression to private domains. Muslim settlement in France has disrupted that peace. It has introduced newconfusion over boundaries between public and private space and led to renewed controversy over religiousfreedom and political tolerance. The “Islamic headscarf” affair of 1989 is the example par excellence of such controversy. It entangled one Muslim girl who wore her hijab to school in a legal crusade that sought toliberalize interpretations of laicite by asserting her right to display a religious symbol in public.
Within the academy, an initial total disregard for Islam has given way to a misunderstanding which resonateswith the xenophobic distrust that has pervaded French society-at-large. Remarkable as it now seems,sociologists during the 1960’s and 1970’s actually studied North African immigration without even acknowledging the Muslim heritage of the immigrants concerned
XENOPHOBIA, IDENTITY POLITICS ANDEXCLUSIONARY POPULISM INWESTERN EUROPE（HANS-GEORG BETZ）
SOCIALIST REGISTER 2003
For the Front National, multiculturalism was but an admission of the fact thatthe vast majority of the new immigrants entering France during the past decadescould not be integrated into French society. As a major Front National exposition on the danger of immigration put it, France was a European nation whosepopulation had been stable for more than two thousand years and whose culturederived ‘from the three great European cultures – Celtic, Germanic, and Greco-Latin – and which was shaped by Roman Christianity’. In the past, immigrantscoming to France had been able to assimilate because they had largely come fromother European countries. By contrast, most new immigrants came from theMaghreb region, Turkey, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa and tended to form‘ethnic quarters and ghetto cities’ – symptoms of a fundamental failure of inte-gration, which would bring about disastrous consequences. By allowing entranceto people whose cultural background was completely different from that of theFrench, France risked importing ‘the ethnic or religious conflicts of the rest ofthe world’
Ｔhe Front National advanced a whole catalogue of demands and‘concrete measures’ designed not only to slow down the inflow of immigrantsand eventually stop it altogether, but also to reverse the evolution of a multi-cultural society by ‘repatriating’ those immigrants the Front National deemedunable (or unwilling) to assimilate (inassimilable). At the same time, the FrontNational promoted a policy of ‘national preference’. The intent was to protectthe ‘fiscal and the national integrity of the welfare state’ through a highly exclusionary immigration policy.
J Rydgren – European Journal of Social Theory, 2003
Le Pen: ‘The Muslim immigrants want to impose their customs on us: the mosques and the “headscarves” and veils today, polygamy and the law of the Koran governing marriage and civil life tomorrow’ (Le Pen in Présent, 28 October 1989; quoted in Duraffour and Guittonneau, 1991: 201, my trans-lation). This frame is echoed by Vivianne Franzén of New Democracy, who in1993 expressed her fear that Swedish school children in the near future would be forced to convert to Islam (Granath, 1993)
More specifically, the Front Nationaldenies being racist, but on the contrary claims that the only existing racism isdirected against the ‘original’ French citizens: ‘The French is the last in the . . .queue to the HLM [i.e., public housing]. Yes, racism exists: the anti-Frenchracism in our country’ (Le Pen, speech 23 March 1984; quoted in Duraffour andGuittonneau, 1991: 218, my translation).
The Zurich party’s position on Islam has to be seen in this context. The argument was that Muslims were both incapable and unwilling to integratethemselves into Swiss society, i.e., to respect its laws, customs, and habits.
At thesame time, the party charged the political establishment with promoting a falseculture of tolerance and understanding, which contributed to the destruction ofSwiss culture. These latent fears are reflected in the title of a review of a bookon Islam by the German orientalist Hans-Peter Raddatz, which appeared inSchweizerzeit, a weekly edited by the prominent SVP national councillor, UlrichSchlüer: ‘Islam in liberal Europe: Christian-Occidental Culture before its Self-Liquidation?’
Carl Hagen, the leader of the Norwegian Progress Party sought publicity for hisparty by citing a letter sent to him, ‘which later was shown to be a fake – sayingthat Norway was on the way to becoming a Muslim state unless the borders wereclosed’.41 In Belgium and Germany, too, the radical right warned that thegrowing number of Muslim immigrants threatened to displace the native population.